A lot has been going on in Britain and is beginning to surface in the US these days about the alleged inappropriate behaviors of various Murdoch employees and his personal responsibility, liability, and knowledge of these actions. Several people have their careers in shatters, there's a man dead, and pie in the face enough to spread around:

Is this the end of the Murdoch empire? Will Murdoch himself face jail time? Will the allegations spread and gain traction in the United States? When does a free press become a criminal enterprise, and how do you police a free press and maintain its freedom?

This thread is more or less to talk about such interesting things and cover the news' impact and implications for Murdoch, other media outlets, and society in general.

Oh god, I hope it is the end! Let that manipulative piece of shit and his hypocritical, damaging, and fabricating monarchy fall in flames!

Yes, it's been all over the media here for the last 10 days or so (though the whole thing has been grinding on for months now). Some of it's pretty bad, I must say.

but

No, I don't think it's the end of the Murdoch empire - it's a lot bigger than the holdings he has here in the UK - though I do think the media-political-legislative climate here is going to have to change quite significantly. It wouldn't surprise me, at this point, if Murdoch pulled out of the UK altogether. I can't see him developing his interests here in the near future, at least. It might also be the case that the family loses control of the overall company if the plunging share values cause stock holders to panic seriously. I think it very unlikely he'll face criminal charges though I have to say, from today's news, that many people are very, very unimpressed with Rupert's and James's lack of knowledge about how their enterprises are run - even after the scandal has been pounding away in the media here for the last 10 days or so, they still don't have accurate information about who worked for them, who was being paid what to do what and so on. I think if I'd been in charge of a company that was faced suddenly with such serious accusations, the first thing I'd want to know is who in the company had done whatever it was, what did their personnel record say and what was the company's relationship with that person. It was both pitiable and laughable watching the interviews today. However, I think it's clear that neither Rupert or James have done anything themselves that is criminal and the evidence to show corporate responsibility doesn't appear to be present.

The US? I have no idea really though I can see if the 9/11 allegations turn out to be even slightly true that the shit will surely hit the fan.

In my fondest dreams the Fox network (or at least Fox news) ends up being driven off the air when it's linked to this scandal.

I saw some of the interviews with them claiming to have no knowledge of wire tapping. Really? Something this big that's gone on for this long and they don't have a clue about it?
Sounds a bit like Nixon claiming to have no knowledge of Watergate or the activities of his cabinet members.

If they really have no knowledge then whose running that empire anyway? If I was a share holder I think I would be panicking about now.

Every single one of his media outlets has always had an agenda, a very strong right wing conservative agenda. Which fit's right in with the wire tapping if you think about it. If he is so careful to make sure they all tow the line as far as his own political views and ideals how can he not know the methods they use to go about doing that? It's not like this was one little rinky dink paper and only one reporter or editor did this. How can they not know who is running their enterprises?

Personally even if they really are living in LaLa land without a clue I think they are still accountable for their companies actions. I hope this doesn't turn out to be another Enron where no one ends up being held responsible for anything.

money is power, he has a lot of it and will somehow escape prison one way or another

I'm a bit surprised that he was allowed to get this strong without a government putting its foot down, preferably on his throat.

It has been abundantly clear that Murdoch is a corrupt snake with a stranglehold on good journalism for many, many, many years. This scandal only adds proof to the mix, but really... ...I don't see the damage reversing.

If his empire fell, even if he manages to rebuild, who would trust him? Who would support him outside of the move feverish creatures who throw themselves at his likeness? Although, the problem is, he is like the Koch brothers. He owns so much, it may difficult to find something he's not a part of in some way.

Who trusted him before? Nobody has been under any illusions about Murdoch or his empire. He doesn't really need to rebuild. It's too big to tumble. He might not be at the helm in public in the future, but do we imagine for one second this scandal will alter the business or its conduct?

I'm not so sure about that. I think there are certainly bound to be some, namely those who think highly of people such as Rush Limbaugh, for example, whom may be forgiving of him, or speculate conspiracies of some grand leftist agenda. Unfortunate, but there you are. I have no doubts they exist.

Anyhow, really, it would depend how far it goes. He took down News of the World, which was of great profit to him, as some speculate, partly as an attempt protect Rebecca Brooks whom he had a great deal of admiration for. I think it brings into question how far he's willing to go. Of course, he has other revenues to fall back on. And granted, he may not see prison, but what of Brooks? What of his son, if it is discovered to go that high up the chain? What of others who may come out of the wood-work? Who would take his place then? And if the allegations are true of such practices in the US, and it is discovered to go up to Murdoch himself, the tables could turn, and he may well face some form of serious reprisal, even prison. I do not think he has the same level of influence here as he has, or had, in the UK. And I would say it already has altered his business by taking one of his major subsidiaries. A change in conduct, however, I doubt would happen, but that is not what is at stake here.

Basically, I see it as; given the right circumstances, nothing is "too big to tumble."

No, I think there are countries too big to tumble, maybe even banks or some of the largest retail/commercial manufacturing sorts of things that just can't go away. Murdoch's news business though? It's not like the news vanishes if Murdoch goes away. It's not like there's a giant hole than can't quickly be filled by the rest of the media outlets if they choose to.

The only really bad implication if NewsCorp shut down tomorrow is that there would be a lot more jobless people for a while until the assets were gobbled up.

What Murdoch and company should be worried about more than anything else in the US I think? A suit by his company's shareholders, to remove his shares and establish financial penalties for screwing up their investments with recklessly inappropriate behavior/lack of awareness.

I don't know how things will play out in Britain. It's like it's a completely different country with different laws and legal options sometimes. Where else does Murdoch do business? If he's got assets in France or Italy things could get even more convoluted - and if the Chinese decide to make a case for Murdoch being the face of unrestricted Western media domination over there? It wouldn't be beyond China I think to simply nationalize all of those investments in China made by Murdoch, at which point anyone who's got money in Murdoch's companies has a pretty good case for "look how you screwed us over by not being ethical and running an ethical company."

But things are really just coming to proper light just yet. I mean, if there's actual foul play with the whistleblower who conveniently turned up dead the other day then there will be murder charges headed at someone, and murder charges tend to come with conspiracy to commit murder charges over here. I don't know what else Britain's got in its legal bag of tricks, but if I were the British police I'd be doing my best to spin Murdoch out to dry.

You don't say!

Amazing huh?

And there's US laws, as well. First, there's the allegation of hacking 9/11 victims. We'll have to see what turns up on that though. But, despite that, depending who gets found it, if it's his son or he himself, there's the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. From what I understand, by being US citizens, they are immediately in violation as it pertains to bribery of foreign officials, or something like that. So if evidence turns of police bribery, it is possible they could be prosecuted in US courts as well for it.

At least for me, it's simply going to be quite interesting to see what the investigations turn up and how deep it goes.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act would be the wrong tool to use in this case I think - you'd be counting on the law breaking new ground with precedent facing a vast political and legal coffer. Usually it's for punishing companies who bribe officials of other countries for clear financial gain, presumably when the host country is too corrupt for their legal redress to truly matter. Wiretapping is another issue, but I don't see it as jail time for anyone higher up. What you'd really want in the US for a criminal case would be something like wiretapping government offices, something involving corpses, or tampering with witnesses/evidence/the justice system. You try to peg them on criminal charges here on piss-ant crap and you're going to lose public will and support. Nail them on something even his advocates must denounce and he's history.

Or we could just hope he did a tag team date rape with Ben Roethlisberger and it got caught by a DEA team nailing a bunch of vicious Russian drug dealers who happened to be delivering them their coke that they were going to snort off the girl's corpses... That would be the sort of thing you just couldn't shrug off. Something that your own news organization would have to run with because it was simply too sensational not to, without spin, because in the end there's 60% of the rest of the company to make money for besides Murdoch.

I'm no legal expert. I've heard it could be possible, however, under that act, for grounds of prosecution in the US. Of course, that's only what I've heard, and I'll be the first to admit that my legal knowledge is not extravagant. I'll try to find some articles about it for you; you can make a call from there, if you'd like.

I think the UK political situation adds an interesting element to this whole situation, too. For a long time, British politicians have had to keep on the good side of the Murdoch empire - especially the Tories - since Murdoch controls so much of the UK media. Now, however, the public all know what's going on, and it's not very spinnable - politicians are free to decry Murdoch and all his holdings (just look at Brown trying to take a chunk out of The Sun recently); and reducing his power would make their lives an awful lot easier. I think there's probably a lot of political will in the UK behind knocking Murdoch down as many pegs as possible, and that will impact the outcome of all this significantly.

I'm still suspired that governments haven't offed the (insert appropriate curse word or derogative term of choice). His 'empire' has been a threat to political and economical stability, as well as common sense.

Yeah, well despite some varied opinions, mostly the US doesn't target its citizens for assassination and I presume the same could be said of Britain most of the time too. Seriously, even though there's a lot of people I'm ashamed to admit are still breathing my air out there, I think it's probably a mistake in most cases to simply unilaterally decide to get rid of people. It sets up precedents that are hard to shake once they're in place. Maybe those sorts of institutional options are useful when there is more continuity in your government, but when you swap out people every four years it gets terrifying. Every change of government would institute a wave of purges, as people got rid of their political opponents. It's absolutely undemocratic.

thing is if murdoch was some unknown ceo of a company nobody heard of he would have been locked up regardless of his excuse of being in the dark about it because he his famous and has money.

if michael jackson was a complete nobody, do you think he would have escaped those child abuse charges if he was just an average joe?

would oj simpson escaped the charges of murdering his wife if he was no more than a normal black guy from los angeles?

it brings me back to the fact that money and fame brings power and in most cases a get out of jail free card

This is far from over and he certainly isn't off the hook yet so I think it's a bit early to say that his money got him off.

Besides an unknown CEO of a little company would never have been able to pull off something of this magnitude in the first place.

The more I read about the situation up to now the more it reminds me of Watergate. I know it's popular to label any scandal that way but this one really applies. Lots of the same type of covert operations went on and it took an insider to blow the whistle on it, past the initial bust on the break in that is.

wasn't that forrest gump phoning room service to complain about how the torch lights kept him awake?



.

If he were an unknown CEO because no one had ever heard of his company then the whole situation wouldn't be quite as troubling. Instead of narrow scope involving whomever might be close associates of the guy and his company officers and employees though, we're basically stuck with the sort of vast implications that become present when very powerful, immensely influential people who are constantly under the scrutiny of their peers behave in a way that they most certainly shouldn't. It's got overtones of Watergate and the Iran-Contra Scandal, but also the lack of WMDs in Iraq War and Edward the VIII.

Everyone knows people behave badly, that's a given. What's astonishing is when people behave badly outside the mostly wide open legal and societal options available to them as free citizens when they've got so very much to lose. If Murdoch had simply turned up with a sex video of some sort, or a dozen illegitimate children, everyone would wag a finger or two and eventually drop it. Whatever our expectations and restraints on Murdoch as a society might be, they likely allow bastards and "can't unsee it" horror movies featuring his wrinkly behind.

Even in the absence of legal redress though, society generally does not get over things like harassment of the grieving. That was simply never an option no matter how wealthy he was. Most people assume quite rightly that being wealthy allows you a lot of leeway for getting arrested and getting punished when you're arrested simply because you can know and afford people that others can't. When the wealthy inform the rest of us that they've been actively pursuing inappropriate relationships with law enforcement, on the presumed premise that eventually they'd need those legal options? That's the sort of thing society really can't allow.

If he were nobody then none of this would matter. Being no one simplifies the implications - being great and powerful is the issue here.

Funny thing about the Iran-Contra scandal. He hired the lawyer involved in that, Brendan Sullivan Jr., who defended Oliver North.

Man I could see going off the deep end on a major conspiracy theory over this.